Dan Riehl devotes three posts to my thoughts and still can’t figure out what I wrote. He also said I write with a Thesaurus beside me. Judging by Mr. Riehl’s wild and crazy personal attacks, that must mean that Dan replies with a dictionary next to his keyboard, struggling to comprehend the meaning of words that any high school drop out in my day would have no trouble deciphering.

I’ll try and keep the syllables under 4 just for you Dan.

What all the hub bub boils down to is that many of you are saying that I am weak and cowardly because I changed my view on the war. In other words, I am not steadfast enough and that I don’t stick with “my principles” thus, making me wishy washy; a “sunshine patriot” as one wag was kind enough to put it.

This is a good criticism, an honest criticism. I have no problem with it. It is based on the excellent notion that standing by what we believe even when things get rocky is the essence of honesty and integrity.

But something happened on the road to Damascus and I changed my thinking. Allow me to explain.

When any of us form opinions – be it on Iraq or whether the Cubs are going to win the 2007 World Series – we base that opinion on an underlying set of assumptions. For instance, an assumption regarding the Cubs is that they haven’t won a World Series since forever and are perhaps the most doggedly jinxed baseball club in Christendom. Other assumptions would include the fact that the ownership rarely does anything right and that Wrigley Field and day baseball saddle the team with a disadvantage. Ergo, my opinion that they don’t have a Tinker’s chance in hell to win it all is based on solid assumptions, grounded in logic and a coherent view of the situation as it exists in baseball, in the National League, and in the eyes of history. The Cubs are toast and I’ll stick by that opinion come hell or high water.

Now suppose it’s late October and high water has arrived; the Cubbies are up in the World Series 3 games to none, needing only one win for the championship. I can still hold the opinion that they haven’t a ghost of a chance to win. But what has changed?

Some of the underlying assumptions are no longer valid, or obsolete, or simply false. Other assumptions remain rock solid. But in maintaining my opinion that there’s no way the Cubs can win, I have had to stretch logic, ignore some facts, concentrate on tangential issues such as perhaps an act of God will halt the Series now before the Cubs can win. In other words, I’m reaching to justify my opinion.

That’s where I found myself a year or so ago with regards to Iraq. Some of the underlying assumptions I had about the war changed. I believed for the longest time that the Administration and the Pentagon had a good idea of what was going on in Iraq and had a viable strategy to deal with the problems there. That assumption proved false. This became apparent when Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney would paint what was happening there in the rosiest of hues – so many schools built, so many clinics opened up, etc. Meanwhile, the insurgency grew, became more vicious, and al-Qaeda began to implement their strategy of pitting Shia against Sunni in order to foment civil war.

Anyone who was reading reports of what was going on in Iraq would more than likely do a double take listening to either one of those gentlemen. Are we talking about the same war? Those of us who have questioned what is happening in Iraq – most of the people that I’ve read anyway – were enormously troubled by this disconnect.

One by one, assumptions I had formed at the beginning of the war and occupation fell victim to changing realities in Iraq. This is not the same place it was 4 years ago nor is it even the same as it was a year ago. And if it has changed – if the facts, perceptions, and reality has changed, what did that do to the underlying justification for my opinions?

Once I began “reaching” to justify my opinions, I got very uncomfortable. The threads of logic became more tenuous the more I examined those pesky assumptions. I realized that many (not all) of my original assumptions were basically obsolete, done in by the cruel logic of domestic politics and a growing realization that the the US military could do everything that was asked of it and more and still come up short thanks to the balking politicians in Iraq, the twisted narrative of the war being spun by the left and the Democrats, Administration failures to implement a strategy that would win the war, and a growing belief that the country was sliding out of control.

So if you’re in my shoes, what do you do? Continue to defend a position you know is becoming untenable as a result of changing realities (and new information not available at the time you formed your original assumptions)? Or do you alter your assumptions and change your opinion?

It could very well be that abandoning long held opinions and beliefs about the war makes me a cowardly wretch. It all depends on how you look at it I suppose. But as I said, I still hold to some of those original assumptions; that Saddam was a potential threat, that the reasons for going into Iraq were basically sound (so much for my new found friends on the left, eh?), and that deposing the murderous tyrant was a good and moral thing to do. I don’t buy in to the left’s narrative regarding Iraq, finding it based on hysterical posturing and bilious phantasms (sorry Dan, couldn’t resist). And I also believe that Iraq is still a central front in the War on Terror (or whatever the Democrats are going to call it).

That said, this is one battle – a battle I sincerely believe we’ve botched as badly as Anzio or Tarawa, or any other blunder made during World War II - and what must be done now in my opinion is try our best to avoid disaster. There will be other battles and we will learn some hard and bitter lessons from this one.

That is, as long as we strive to be honest with ourselves. For me personally, this has meant questioning my beliefs when I thought the circumstances demanded it. If that means I’m “thinking too much” or seeing “too much nuance,” so be it. That is who I am. That is how I write.

By: Rick Moran at 9:35 am

47 Responses to “LAST WORD”

1

Fight4TheRight Said:
10:25 am

Rick,

Good posting. I’d like to make two comments – one that supports your position and one that supports Dan Riehl’s.

1. You make a good point about how things can change, dramatically. I would like to point out that another element of the Iraqi War, one we here in America have never encountered before, is the Age of Media Saturation. Let’s face it…never before have the American people been inundated with the pictures of death and destruction from not only the MSM but cable news and the blogs. I don’t think I have to mention what two or three carefully “constructed” headlines in the NYTimes and WaPo can do for public opinion during this time. Compare the daily record of car bombings, suicide bombers, assasinations, troop casualties with say a Bosnia conflict. There has never been anything like this. It changed the effort immensely. And to support your view, this is the main reason President Bush failed in his “tight-lipped” presentation of the War progress and updates.

2. I don’t speak for Dan Riehl but I sense a lot of us on the Right see this Iraq War as so much more than just avoiding a disaster or winning or getting by. I, personally, believe this has now developed into a defining moment for this Country in our approach to the World Advancement of Islamofascism. I have no doubt that if the Dems succeed, that U.S. troops are withdrawn and we leave Iraq, it will be next to impossible for the U.S.A. to EVER confront another enemy anywhere – the idea that one U.S. troop loss is less acceptable than a stoppage of Islamic extremism and terror will take root and will define the new age of the U.S. We will reflect the passiveness of Europe.

My continued support of the Iraq War effort does not mean I’m an idiot and don’t see our transgressions and missteps. It doesn’t mean I buy the entire canned Administration updates. It does mean I think the precipice we are at is wide and dangerous. And one last point. If the American people were shown in complete detail, all of the scenarios of the U.S. pulling out and leaving the vacuum of Iraq, shown those consequences, I believe a 60% support of troop pullout will sink to 30%. A symbolic or “minor” troop re-deployment will mean a full and unconditional surrender in Iraq – to think the Liberals will settle for anything less would be a greater mistake than any made in this War by President Bush.

2

Drongo Said:
10:32 am

“Saddam was a potential threat”

Honestly? What were you expecting him to do?

“that the reasons for going into Iraq were basically sound”

Even knowing what you now know about the gross ignorance regarding such things as the ethnic makeup of the country, the inevitability of insurgency, the influence of Iran on sources used to promote the war and on those who would be our chief hopes, and even basic strategic understanding of the region?

OK, I suppose it is a judgment call. I see it primarily as a huge strategic mistake.

“and that deposing the murderous tyrant was a good and moral thing to do.”

Certainly this is true in spades.

“so much for my new found friends on the left, eh?”

I find it bizarre that political groupings based primarily on economic and social issues are what divides people over this issue. Over here (the UK) it isn’t so simple. I imagine that if the conservatives (right wing-ish) had started the war then the left would be all hell-for-self-righteous-leather in the “Evil rightwingers” camp, but it was the left-leaning Labour party who went for it.

It strikes me that the division doesn’t work on a “right-v-left” view of the world. It seems more that it is a contest between people who try to look carefully at the world and draw conclusions and those who draw conclusions and then look at the world to suit them.

Still, maybe that is just self-serving.

Anyway, I for one think that your writing is excellent, and only really commented because I thought that you were ignoring the reality of politics in Iraq in your conclusions.

3

Hallfasthero Said:
11:05 am

So if youâ€™re in my shoes, what do you do? Continue to defend a position you know is becoming untenable as a result of changing realities (and new information not available at the time you formed your original assumptions)? Or do you alter your assumptions and change your opinion?

Clearly, nuanced thinking is what is getting you into trouble with people on the right which you clearly acknowledge. Reading through the posts you are not getting anywhere near the same foul treatment from the left. I don’t agree with you as to why Iraq is not working out – the lack of compromise and reassessment is the biggest culprit. Bush’s p/r was not the problem – the outcome was the problem. You can’t spin a mess forever before people start seeing it for what it is – a mess.

I do understand that everyone has a shared interest in the outcome and have said so at every opportunity. What some people don’t seem to understand judging from the responses you are getting is that creating a dialogue does NOT begin with badmouthing the other side. Trying to work together with someone but calling them a “defeatist” and a “traitor” in the process is only going to result in failure. That is pure wilful ignorance.

One of your posters basically said that if the Democrats withhdraw the troops, they will own this defeat. Never mind the reality of the situation. Using that same baseball analogy, lets say a team (the Cubs, for instance) is down by 10-0 going into the 9th inning, he would argue that the last pitcher on the mound for the losing team cost them the game. Or the last batter at the plate. Not the starter who gave up all the runs or all the previous batters who couldn’t get a hit. It doesn’t wash. GWB left a mess and there are no good options left that arnen’t going to be costly in one form or another.

The Chicago Cub analogy is brilliant but would probably only be fully understood by a Chicago fan. I haven’t been following them much this year but even as a Twins fan, I find myself rooting for them.

Excellent explanation. The simple fact of the matter is that we have never been able to provide security in Iraq. We couldn’t provide security when we were “only” facing a Sunni/AQI insurgency. Our post-Samarra civil war/multi-faceted insurgency operations have not been any more successful. In short, we’ve failed for four straight years to provide security – the foundation for all our other goals. The surge may provide a decrease in violence in Baghdad, but the level of troops we currently have committed to Iraq is unsustainable. The Army is burning the candle at both ends and is basically a broken force now. Once this surge ends, troop levels will have to decrease dramatically and what then? Violence will likely increase once more. The damage done to the Army will take years to repair.

You talk about the underlying assumptions and that is key. Look at Operation Market Garden in WWII. (Google it if you don’t know the history). The operation was designed to establish a bridgehead across the Rhine in what was thought to be a weak point in the German defenses. The operation had many tactical and operational successes but was ultimately a strategic failure because the bridgehead was never acheived. As events unfolded, it became clear to the military leaders after a certain point that a bridgehead would not be attained. At that point, the objectives changed and the original aim was wisely abandoned.

We are at a similar crossroads in Iraq. We’ve had tactical and operations successes, but we have had no strategic victory and, in fact, we are facing strategic defeat. Those who use terms like “surrender monkey” and “sunshine patriot” would have pressed-on with Market Garden even after it became clear the operation was a failure. Ending Market Garden short of it’s goals was not surrender nor was it unpatriotic – it was a wise a noble course of action. Wasting valuable combat power in futile attempts at continuing the fight is not patriotic – it is stupid. Gallipoli is another example. The Armchair Generals who spout “surrender monkey” are the same sort that ordered charge after futile charge in vain attempts at “victory.” Wisdom in warfare is knowing when objectives are unattainable given the realities of the situation. Inflexibility in a wartime environment and failing to adjust to changing conditions often results in disaster. The battlefields of history are strewn with examples.

The people today who are excoriating you, Rick, insist we continue the fight but have no real ideas or solutions that would result in achieving our strategic objectives. Their only arguments basically boil down to avoiding the consequences of defeat. A strategy whose sole purpose appears to be preventing defeat is a doomed strategy. Armchair Generals who know nothing of actual military operations can postulate that victory only requires greater will and perseverance or whatever. That they attack you only shows they have no idea how to actually achieve strategic success. If we had the capability to keep 200k+ troops in Iraq for 5-10 more years we might achieve success, but that is impossible. But we can barely keep 160k troops in Iraq for a single year and the time constraints imposed by domestic politics means success will have to come quickly. Quick success on a timetable is anathema to a successful COIN operation.

So, you are right on the money Rick. Failure to question assumptions and clinging to increasingly vague notions of victory serves no interest but ego. Failure to reevaluate strategies often results in a situation worse than defeat. If some of your critics were in charge in WWII we might still be trying to take that bridge over the Rhine today.

It’s time to redefine our objectives and have a serious debate on where to go from here. Neither party seems interested in such a debate nor in exploring alternatives – a bad omen that could lead to disaster.

5

Barry Said:
1:40 pm

I am continually surprised and impressed with your writings. As someone who leans to the left, I’ve tried to find opinions on the right that were more than the standard reiterization of the Bush Admin./Fox News talking points. I don’t agree with everything you say, but your going out on a limb to admit your opinion of the war has changed seems just about unprecedented in the right-wing realm. It’s a shame that such independent thought is met with charges of weakness or disloyalty.

6

r4d20 Said:
3:23 pm

U.S. troops are withdrawn and we leave Iraq, it will be next to impossible for the U.S.A. to EVER confront another enemy anywhere

Well I think it is fairly shameful to personally attack someone’s integrity over the war – I wouldn’t even call a leftist ‘unpatriotic’ for opposing the war, far less would I crit Rick Moran – whom I know has America’s best interests at heart – for looking at the situation, and coming to a pessimistic conclusion.

Rick, I disagree with your assessment, but I know you come by it honestly, so I got your back.

8

srv Said:
6:40 pm

What Andy said.

The dead enders will expend no end of blood and treasure to achieve that which they can’t explain how to achieve.

Rick will be frustrated for as long as it takes him to realize this isn’t a problem, but a trait.

9

Fight4TheRight Said:
8:38 pm

r4d20,

Okay…you say “ridiculous.”

If the end result of all of this is the complete withdrawl of U.S. Troops from Iraq and a full surrender by us there, then I challenge you to give me one example of a military action by the U.S. that this Congress would approve in the future (where U.S. soil has not been attacked). Just one.

“This became apparent when Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney would paint what was happening there in the rosiest of hues â€“ so many schools built, so many clinics opened up, etc. Meanwhile, the insurgency grew, became more vicious, and al-Qaeda began to implement their strategy of pitting Shia against Sunni in order to foment civil war.”

It would appear that both the Secretary and the Vice President seem to have seriously misunderstood the media atmosphere (more so then the President, who is proven no Reagan in combating a hostile media). It is entirely possible they believed the strategies of the time were destined to be successful; however if they believed that by attempting to counter news of constant stream of violence in Iraq with positive news they would be able to break through the near total blackout on the latter subject they were sorely mistaken.

...

While the situation in Iraq seems to be showing some signs of potential improvement in the long run with the present surge, there are justifiable criticisms of many tactical decisions of the war planners.

In terms of the question of how the U.S. would be affected should we “lose” it would depend. I would disagree that we would not be able be able to confront, as it was stated, “any enemy anywhere.” However it is likely that policy makers will shift to a increasingly isolationist platform more akin to the immediate post Vietnam era. This does not bar the American people to shift attitudes on a case by case basis (such as polls revealed after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Realistically, we must expect al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups to claim victory (ala Somalia) and for such groups to proceed to attempt to achieve there mission goals (whether or not a withdrawal from Iraq would cause those groups to flourish is, of course, subject to much debate).

Is there any circumstances in which I think the U.S. should withdrawal? Despite my own beliefs in mass chaos, and bloodshed, as well as long term risk of terrorist strikes against Western targets there is such a case of a withdrawal, if it were clear that the U.S. and it’s coalition partners are literally achieving a net-neutral or net-negative result then it would render the U.S. presence pointless.

11

The Real Barry Said:
11:32 pm

I believe the will to win is overlooked. Where would we be in Iraq if those who voted on the authorization to use force in Iraq and those who supported it maintained their support for the Iraqi people and victory over the terrorists? Mistakes are many, as in all wars. And I believe we have made many. Those that have called for cut and run, after voting for or supporting the war have given hope to the terrorists. That is the problem with your stance. It appears as though a finger in the breeze. It’s unpopular now, so join the majority. What happens when we pull out? What effect does it have in Afghanistan? Do you believe the terrorists will stop with victory in Iraq?

I caught exactly the same nonsense after I realized and started writing about how the Bush Administration mismanaged a fine victory by our military in Iraq and started dancing on cracks between pleasing the President’s Saudi `allies’ re: The Sunnis and his fetish for Arab democracy.

All one has to do is look at presdient Bush’s own determination of what would constitute a `victory’ to realize that it simply isn’t going to happen that way.

We are essentially in the position of `stabilizing’ a corrupt Shiite government that’s creating an Islamic republic based on Sharia that has already been committing ethnic cleasing, enthusiastically observes a boycott against Israel that ’s illegal under US law and has firm ties to our enemies in Iran.

Since the president is now unable to utilize Iraq as a base against Iran and Syria ( the main reason it made sense to go there in the first place)and since we’ve screwed the only real allies we had there,the Kurds, for the second time, our best bet is to exit as gracefully as we can while not breaking our army’s morale…hopefully after dealing with Iran, if the President packs the requisite
gear.

It’s not unpatriotic or weak minded to look at things honestly and learn from mistakes.

Don’t let it get you down.

Regards,
FF

13

SShiell Said:
1:03 am

For those who do not understand the import of our ability to confront “any enemy anywhere” I would like to offer this comment. Look at it from the perspective of the troops coming home.

Yeah, the troops are really going to enjoy coming back home to air conditioning, milk, beer, beautiful american women dressed to please, and all of the Mom and apple pie analogies you want to pile on them.

But they will also come home to a country of leaders like Harry Reid, John Murtha, John Kerry, Dick Durbin. Leaders of our country who have referred to them as losers (Reid), murderers (Murtha), stupid (Kerry), and Nazis (Durbin). They supported the troops and brought them home.

And the American people sided with them.

How do you think these young people will view the next time they are sent into the fray? How do you think these young people will react to people that burned soldiers in effigy or others who carried signs that said:

“F*ck the Troops”
“We support the troops who kill their officers”

And the American people sided with them.

How do you tell these young men who never once retreated in battle, who beat the enemy in every fire fight, who killed their enemies at a rate of 40 or 50 to one, who are now walking away from a country where they bled and died to give total strangers an opportunity for freedom that they are losers.

And then tell them “Now get ready for the next time we need you to face any enemy anywhere.”

14

Drongo Said:
4:04 am

“Itâ€™s unpopular now, so join the majority.”

Of all the things that one could say with regard to Mr Moran, this seems about as far from the truth as you can get. It should be pretty obvious that the concerns of the majority do not drive his opinions except insofar as they are a factor in his reasoning.

What are you supposed to do when an honest assesment of the situation makes you realise that you need to revise your opinion? Carry on pretending that is isn’t so?

15

AZRN Said:
7:59 am

I am a conservative. I am thankful for the opportunity to read commentary from the right in blogs. I hunger for the “other side” but I won’t go to the lefty blogs because they are illogical.
Thanks for the other side. I count on it.

16

grognard Said:
8:26 am

In the 1980â€™s when Saddam gassed the Kurds I knew we would have to have a day of reckoning with him. I knew he was a counter to Iran, by attacking Iran he set back the revolution for decades. I thought we should have gone after him in the Gulf War, regardless of the possibility of a Shiite revolt, as a conquered nation that started a war the ground rules for suppressing any insurgency would have been different. When I saw the interview with the woman who was in charge of the Saddamâ€™s Bio weapons projects boast about her ability to produce anthrax I thought that we had to take him out then, that the sanctions were having no effect. So I did support the war and taking out Saddam, but then things quickly changed. General Shinsekiâ€™s troops estimates, based on war gaming, were 100,000 higher than what we sent in, and those troops were reserves for postwar operation. I know how the Army plans these things, and the cavalier rebuke by Rumsfeld was a sign for me that things we were in trouble. I agreed with Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard when he called for many more troops, and could not understand how Bush would not listen to his own side. There was no honest debate over the war, criticize the war you were a traitor, support the war effort against Saddam you were a pawn of Halliburton. I was blasted by both sides, most of it was juvenile name calling. Both side have played games with the war, politics now is more like a basketball game with both sides trying to score on each other rather than trying to run a country. I curse Limbaugh and Moore, I curse the left and right, this country richly deserves what it is getting if the only people we listen too are the demagogs.

17

Bruce Said:
8:38 am

“Don’t Tread On Me”, “I regret that I have only one life to give for my country”, “I have not yet begun to fight”, “Don’t give up the ship”, “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”, “Over, we’re coming over, and we won’t come back till it’s over Over There!”, “Nuts!”

If these are familiar sayings to you then you know the rich history of the US and how Americans have risen to the occasion when called upon. If not, go ask a parent or grandparent to explain what they mean.

Throughout our history, when Americans have gone to war, the attitude has always been, “Let’s get this thing over with so we can go home.” That has always meant hanging in there until the final objective has been achieved. Not giving up.

The problem with Iraq, and the global war on terror, is the leadership of the country. We had a leader once who said America would pay any price and bear any burden in the defense of freedom, and encouraged us to ask not what our country could do for us, but instead ask what we could do for our country. The legendary coach of the Green Bay Packers used to have a saying, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” We have a large segment of people who have been “liberalized” to not continue with anything that’s “too hard”. In Political Correct terminology this becomes, “When the going gets tough, we’re outa here!”

What should be clear is that our enemy (whatever you want to call them) cannot beat us unless we let them. They know this, and are doing what they can to wear us down via the media, who are willing to be duped and lead down that road. It’s almost like a child disobeying a parent. The child will continue to push until the “no” is no longer forced upon them.

Bin Laden saw our leadership lose their resolve in Somalia, and decided that Americans would give up if the “going” got too tough, as soon as pictures of dead Americans would be shown throught the world. This is the “Munich” of our time. Will we wind up being a “Neville” or a “Winston”? The fate of our grandchildren could be at stake.

18

Hankmeister Said:
9:19 am

The baseball analogy is flawed. As someone who spent nearly fourteen years in the game since Little League, what if the score was really five to five going into the ninth inning? Wouldn’t the pitcher who comes into the ninth and then gives up the solitary run be responsible for the defeat? It’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest the score is 9 to 0 in favor of Muslim radicals.

Despite the violence which is happening in Iraq there is no way anyone can say we’re winning or we’re losing. Wars like this always hang in the balance until one side quits the battlefield … like we did in Vietnam. Here are the facts: Operation Iraqi Freedom was an inarguable success. It did exactly what it was intended to do, depose Saddam’s regime and it did it in only 21 days. But what has been a failure was the Administration’s failure and the Pentagon’s to anticipate global jihadists would begin filtering into the country to destabilize it because they saw how devastating this would be to their desire for an Islamic caliphate if the Iraqi people were able to settle on some peaceful version of Arabic democracy, a fact anti-war liberals still refuse to see for themselves to this day. Clearly the “small footprint” approach by Generals Casey and Abizaid (with Bush deferring to Rumsfeld and the generals in the field as he is on record doing) didn’t work and conservatives had become increasinly angry about this minimalist approach since June 2003. And like President Lincoln – though taking considerably longer than Lincoln did – President Bush changed his commanding General and is looking for a more pro-active way in quelling the sectarian violence in Iraq resulting from al Qaeda blowing up the Shia mosque in 2005.

Other than the public perception, al Qaeda in Iraq (yes, they were in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion and in increasing numbers afterward as events have played out the last four years) and the homegrown jihadists/insurgents have suffered one defeat after another in military terms. If all the jihadists/insurgent have to do is blow up innocent civilians even just once a month for benefit of anti-war handwringers, then yes, I would say the score is nine to nothing because there is no amount of grandslams that American forces can hit in the ninth inning to make the most jaded spectator believe their team has any possibility of winning. And anyone who doesn’t think that the precise reason innocent civilians are being targetted by Muslim jihadist/insurgents is for the benefit of giving the anti-war crowd here in the West its reasons to oppose this war is smoking something. That is precisely the Koranic tenet that is being followed, blowing up ones brother and sister for a greater cause since they believe those they murder are martyrs in THE CAUSE. Now how twisted is that?

The Muslim jihadists have learned very well the lessons of Vietnam as expressed by North Vietnamese General Giapp when he referred to the 1960s anti-war movement as “his friends”. Victor Davis Hanson documented in 2003: Gen. Giap, in a series of postbellum interviews, confessed that the North Vietnamese were ready to cease aggression under the weight of the 1972 and 1973 bombing campaigns. He then directly associated the reprieve with the welcome efforts of the radical antiwar movement. Indeed he told French television that his most important guerrilla ally during the war was the American press. The Vietnam News Agency as early as 1966 wrote “We praise the American peace champions. The movement of the American people to protest the war of aggression has really become the second front against the U.S. imperialists.” Another communist official, Bui Tinh, claimed that Fonda’s Hanoi visits, press releases and much publicized photo-ops in enemy batteries had helped the communists “to hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.”

We’re seeing the same pattern repeat itself where pacifist appeasement and divisiveness is a source of moral strength for our enemies. In their eyes America really is a “paper tiger”. This dynamic cannot be denied because that was exactly the conclusion of Usama bin Laden when he saw President Clinton withdraw American troops from Somalia after the BlackHawk Down incident.

Doubt me? Here’s the bin Laden interview. Excerpt: After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger.

What the anti-war movement and waffling Democratic leadership prove to our enemies with each passing day is America doesn’t have the staying power and our friends like the former South Vietnamese and now the civilian Iraqi population cannot depend on us to stay and fight the good fight against communist or jihadist murderers. Might makes right is wrong-headed, you’ll get no argument from me on that. But just is wrong is might is never right. Call me old-fashioned in the Arthurian sense of the term, but at some point there must be Might for Right. And despite all the media negativism and the self-righteous rancor of those do-nothing-but-complain pacifists and Bush-haters, I still believe this was a necessary and noble cause in the general War on Muslim Jihadism despite how its being spun by those who live to blame America.

19

Richard Bottoms Said:
10:21 am

And despite all the media negativism and the self-righteous rancor of those do-nothing-but-complain pacifists and Bush-haters, I still believe this was a necessary and noble cause in the general War on Muslim Jihadism despite how its being spun by those who live to blame America.

So we’ll be hearing president Bush call for all able bodied men and women to go down and enlist any day now?

“There was no honest debate over the war, criticize the war you were a traitor, support the war effort against Saddam you were a pawn of Halliburton. I was blasted by both sides, most of it was juvenile name calling.” -grognard

I think this is somewhat of an exaggeration. This is not to say that polemics have often dominated discussions on both sides, especially on forums and message boards. However, to say there was no honest debate either between the pro-war factions and anti-war factions or inside those factions does not squire with my own admitted subjective evaluations. In addition, I cannot count how many times political pundits on the right have emphasized who question the war (let alone it’s strategy are not “unpatriotic” (this does not of course speak to every individual Ann Coulter-ish commentator or person on a message board).

...

In re: to compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans on the subject of Iraq such a compromise would require a sufficient number of persons in both parties to come to an agreement that both believe is satisfactory.

Currently, the Democratic leadership has professed (through the the moderate Harry Reid) that the “war is lost.” They have proposed a (rather ludicrous, in my opinion) plan to cut down the most of armed forces in Iraq but leave some at bases to hunt down terrorists. Should such a plan be implemented (although I seriously doubt the Dem leaders intend it as a long term strategy) it would raise questions of U.S. options should violence in Iraq escalate in the event of a general American withdraw.

21

Richard Bottoms Said:
10:44 am

What should be clear is that our enemy (whatever you want to call them) cannot beat us unless we let them.

True.

All the more reason to wonder why the US Army was never increased in size to cope with the threats worldwide, why those injured in battle still are not dealt with adequately by the VA, why reseves of every vital store of the Army is in short supply, and why the leader of this nation refuses to step forward and ask for the sacrifices needed to win.

I’m thinking politics. The politicis of preserving tax cuts for millionaires and $2.00 gas rather than going on a wartime footing.

When George Bush really gets serious about the war he launched you let me know.

22

Hankmeister Said:
11:14 am

You know Richard, at the risk of repeating myself, your canard is rather self-serving in that YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF VOLUNTEERING FOR ANYTHING since you’re probably too busy availing yourself of every right and opportunity that this “evil military industrial complex” affords people like you.

Now at the risk of me calling people like you do-nothing-but-complain peaceniks again, I do seem to remember your side of the aisle long regaling the rest of us about your undenying love and “concern” for the global citizens around the world and how your version of democracy (liberal socialism?) should be spread among the masses. When I hear things like that I assume the Bush-haters have more than just some pie-in-the-sky political process to achieve that aim … or maybe you’re waiting for the oppressed masses to be enlightened by some heretofore unknown impersonal cosmic force. Absent that I have to assume that at some point people on your side of the aisle will have to make good on your endless blather about “human shields.”

Now I’m not asking you to throw yourself under evil ammunition trains that are supplying the pawn armies of that great dictator Bu$Hitler, but given the past rhetoric of those on your side of the aisle about the wonders of democratic liberty that you enjoy, your aversion to military force to achieve that end against tyrants and now terrorists when necessary, and the brotherhood of all mankind, when will you volunteer to be a human shield and interpose yourself between those who wish to destroy our American way of life? (crickets chirping)

After all, unlike military service, there is no age limit or physical to pass to transition from sidewalk commandos railing against an American evil or impotence you claim to see to an actual organized force of human beings willing to put to test your rhetoric about “defending to death other people’s right to speak their mind.” Or was that merely rhetorical flourish for show, too? In view of the absence of that army of human shields, I for one will place my trust in the military option in keeping the enemy on foreign battlefields. But a day may come when even that is no longer possible given an ever emboldened enemy.

You have no idea the true nature of the Islamist wolf which crouches at the door, do you? Oh, that’s right, we call that kind of analysis “Islamophobia” now. Kind of like Naziphobia, right?

23

Richard Bottoms Said:
12:06 pm

You know Richard, at the risk of repeating myself, your canard is rather self-serving in that YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF VOLUNTEERING FOR ANYTHING since youâ€™re probably too busy availing yourself of every right and opportunity that this â€œevil military industrial complexâ€ affords people like you.

I served 13 1/2 years in the United States Army as a proud soldier. I tried to re-enlist in 2003 but was told I was too old.

24

Richard Bottoms Said:
12:14 pm

Eventually some of you folks will have to learn that “the left” has more than a few folks who have worn this country’s uniform.

We are particularly irked by keyboard commandoes willing to fight to last man, as long as that man isn’t them.

I am simply asking the question, if this the fight for our very survival Bus says it is why the steps necessary to win it aren’t being taken.

Shot up Humvees, crashed helicopters, and maimed soldiers are price to be paid in war.

What I don’t see in the $.05 extra in gas taxes to pay for it or the commander in chief asking the mass of the public to sacrifice for it.

This ‘Defeatocrat’ says $40,000 re-enlistment bonuses to fill out the front ranks is unsupportable and even Prince Harry is headed off to fight this war.

This Islamophobe is weary of rehashing the whys and wherefores of our most excellent yet flawed Iraqi enterprise. It is boring to enumerate the mistakes we have made from the beginning, just to once again tar Bush with the outcome.

Suppose, however, we stepped back and looked at the situation with fresh eyes with the idea of winning this fight at as little cost in lives and treasure as possible.

We should have a roadmap of all the tribes, their names, locations, and roles available to use. We should know how they are positioned politically and in the government. Not just Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd, but all of the factions should be highly visible to us and their views, pictures,and actions publicized. Let there be light on the factions; know thy friends and thy enemies.

We should publically award our friends with significant largess, and deny our enemies. Those that by their words and actions show their hostility should not be rewarded.

We are not going to win their hearts and minds until they are desparate, out of ammo, being denied safe havens, and see the rewards they are missing, if ever.

We need to disarm Iraq, starting with our enemies, but progressing through all of the provinces eventually.

We need to occupy Iraq completely; every corner and every street should be under surveillance and able to be responded to when insurgents show. We need to seal the borders effectively, and shoot all that try to enter without permission. We need to shoot every man that has a weapon in his possession, who is not uniformed and authorized to have one.

Martial Law should be declared, and curfews instituted such that night wanderers can be shot on sight. The central part of the cities should be auto-free zones, except for official vehicles. In other words, to cut down on this potentially long list of shoulds, we should clamp down hard and stay that way for a while.

All of this takes troop power, lots of it, and lots of the new armored vehicles too, that are better able to survive the IED. It would take lots of airborne equipment to keep key areas of this large land under surveillance 24/7, and able to open up with heavy firepower on any group that shows up illegally.

We should ourselves take control of the oil in Iraq, with the purpose of eventually distributing the revenues equitably, and meanwhile to use these assets to help pay expenses all around and provide rewards of a tangible nature to those who support us.

All of this would take perhaps a total of 500 thousand troops and support people, with a similar Iraqi force sharing the load.

What a pity we don’t have that kind of troop power. Perhaps we should draft and train men and let them take over stateside slots, thus freeing up volunteers for combat.

So far, it has been guns and butter, with no sacrifice asked of the people beyond the casualties we have suffered. I believe that the US citizen wants victory in Iraq, and would respond favorably to an all out push.

But then we have the Democrats in control of Congress, who have shown their passive approach very clearly, never mind the true feelings of the public. We won’t be allowed to “Go Heavy”, as we should have done up front.

When the Islamofacists start actions here on our home soil, they will face some very determined opposition, since we are an armed nation. I hope the lessons of the impending UK and European submergence into partial Shiria will be warning enough, but I doubt even that.

For those who speak of armchair soldiers, etc.,willing to let others fight, the answer is yes, that is so. I fought my war overseas, now it is time for others to fight their war. What a shameful way to portray veterans of our wars; true armchair warriors, unable physically to endure combat yet again.

26

TomT Said:
3:56 pm

“General Shinsekiâ€™s troops estimates, based on war gaming, were 100,000 higher than what we sent in, and those troops were reserves for postwar operation.”

What was his numbers for Afganistan? I think you will find out that he always wanted more troop for every operation. This is why 9/11 happened. In the 90s when the Pentagon was asked about plans to get OBL, every response from the Pentagon required massive amounts of force leading to a logistics nightmare. Our Generals have enough blood on their hands. Do not make them out to be geniuses. Could you imagine maintaining a force in Iraq the size Shinseki wanted for any length of time? I’m sorry, I guess if we had that many troops in Iraq everything would have been peaches and cream and they would have been home by Christmas. And they tell me I am unrealistic!

27

Drongo Said:
4:41 pm

“All of this would take perhaps a total of 500 thousand troops and support people, with a similar Iraqi force sharing the load.”

And you’d still be there in 20 years, still fighting the same old insurgency in the same old way, with a crippled economy, rapidly losing ground to rival superpowers until eventually you pulled out to find that you climb back to the top.

People who regard withdrawl from Iraq, bloodshed and humiliation as the worst outcomes are thinking too short sightedly. While Islamic hordes taking over America (and Europe to be honest) is just an absurd fantasy, crippling your country in the long term is a very real possibility.

And for what? To prop up (sign with me) a regime of murderous corrupt fanatical Islamist Anti-Americans.

The smart move, when you’ve lost the pot, is to fold your hand and play the next one.

28

Nick D. Said:
4:50 pm

Rick wrote:

“[S]omething happened on the road to Damascus and I changed my thinking…”

How convenient.

“... this [Iraq] is one battle â€“ a battle I sincerely believe weâ€™ve botched as badly as Anzio or Tarawa, or any other blunder made during World War II - and what must be done now in my opinion is try our best to avoid disaster. There will be other battles and we will learn some hard and bitter lessons from this one.”

Useless Surrendercrat idiocy with zero perspective and proportion of the respective military capabilities of the enemy.

All the more reason to wonder why the US Army was never increased in size to cope with the threats worldwide, why those injured in battle still are not dealt with adequately by the VA, why reseves of every vital store of the Army is in short supply, and why the leader of this nation refuses to step forward and ask for the sacrifices needed to win.

Iâ€™m thinking politics. The politicis of preserving tax cuts for millionaires and $2.00 gas rather than going on a wartime footing.

When George Bush really gets serious about the war he launched you let me know.

GWB has little control over the items you cite. Congress decides how big the Army will be and how it will be structured. Congress funds the VA, Congress buys equipment for the military, including spares. Congress authorized the war and continues to do so today, despite the new rhetoric.

If you want someone to blame for not building a military up to the task, you need to blame Congress.

30

Rick Moran Said:
5:19 pm

Nick D:

Glad to oblige.

And just to make sure you don’t weaken in your resolve not to visit this site again, you’re banned.

31

ed Said:
6:07 pm

This is the best set of comments I have ever seen here. Rick’s thoughtful honesty seemed to bring the same out in (most) others.

Andy, I would note that GWB leads the war effort, just as other Commanders-in-Chief led other wars. I don’t think FDR sat by while Congress refused to fund WW II appropriately, nor did Churchill in England with his legislative branch. Of course, they didn’t mislead about the threat posed by Axis powers either, nor did they point out the threat of Axis powers and then attack Finland.

You’re right, he leads the effort, and that leadership has been lacking. But that is a separate issue from building, funding, organizing, and supplying the military – all of which fall under the perview of Congress. The executive commands the military and prosecutes wars authorized by Congress. If Congress wanted to end the war tomorrow, they could, but obviously they’re divided on the issue. That’s what democracy is all about.

33

The Real Barry Said:
8:51 pm

ed said “...nor did they point out the threat of Axis powers and then attack Finland.”

Well, ed, Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. You might want to look up what our first action was. Hint, it was not against the Japanese.

In any event, our first response occured in Afghanistan.

34

grognard Said:
9:34 pm

TomT

â€¦logistical nightmareâ€¦cost to maintainâ€¦
The number of troops in the first gulf war were much higher, we have the capability to supply put far higher numbers of troops in the field than what we have in Iraq. War is not a penny pinching enterprise, as we are now discovering, you go in with everything and get it over. If that is asking too much then donâ€™t go to war.

â€¦blood on their handsâ€¦geniusesâ€¦

They are highly skilled professionals doing a job under very trying conditions and your comments are contemptible, but par for the course now days. By the way even with higher troops levels no general made the claim of home by Christmas, they knew full well how tough this was going to be.

There was a time when we had sufficient manpower to fight two wars simultaneously on different continents and have a reserve for a third smaller conflict, as well as a home force sufficient to discourage attacks here. This sized force was not a particular strain on our economy and wouldn’t be so now. It would have given us the means, however, to saturate Iraq for long enough to set up a more stable situation in the four years we have been there.

But, we were thinking about starting over, rethinking the strategy and tactics, and trying to find a way forward. What I missed, of course, was someone taking the Go High approach, instead of any of the lesser routes to appeasement and defeat, which is the course we are on, it seems.

Everyone appears to be trying hard to back away from Go High, or at least denegrating the idea out of hand, possibly because they have convinced themselves that the public and Congress won’t support it, so they don’t either. Really prescient thinking! Or, perhaps it is the sheer complexity of the conflict and the number of parties to the brawl that make it so hard to see a way through this mess. So I am from the old school that has a few maxims to go by:

1. You start a brawl, you finish it.
2. If you have the power, use it.
3. Use overbearing power if you go in at all. War on the cheap will not win.
4. Always fight to win, not to send signals or other nuanced behaviors some leaders have been fond of.
5. The only good enemy is a totally defeated enemy, so go for the total win by knocking out every possible enemy combatant.
6. Forget about this hearts and minds stuff until after victory has been achieved. Time enough to mend and reconstruct when the shooting and bombing is over. Why reconstruct in the midst of bombings?
7. Maintain control of the entire situation until it is stable (in this current case, regain control). Might be five or ten years.
8. Isolate the area from outside interference as far as possible. Use your power to ensure this. Block the borders.
9. Go after a bite at a time (defeat in detail), use reward and punishment to convince groups of their best choice. Continue to expand the area of control and acceptance. control the power supply, water, and food sources. Good guys get the goods; bad guys don’t.
10. Take and hold the ground. Use troop power to deny the enemy his strongholds, and go after the leaders particularly.
11. Flatten any resistence, any militias, and build up some large concentration camps for the captured terrorists.
12. Always deal from strength when facing Islamics.
13. Be prepared to govern the nation from the grassroots up for some number of years.
14. Turn out thousands of men trained in the languages of importance.

...................
Oh well! This could go on and on, but the idea is to Dominate, and only then show the velvet glove. Today, this means a Supersurge within some months from now, or perhaps a year. It also means a draft, and a number of years of deployments.

Otherwise…you have earned a mess, so deal with it as best you can.
You want to fold, then fold, and take what comes after. I, for one, will feel far less secure about Islamofascists in America if we do fold.

.

36

Richard Bottoms Said:
10:45 pm

If you want someone to blame for not building a military up to the task, you need to blame Congress.

You mean the Congress controlled by Republicans until four months ago?

Okay.

37

Richard Bottoms Said:
11:19 pm

Could you imagine maintaining a force in Iraq the size Shinseki wanted for any length of time?

Yes.

If you are serious that this is a battle of modernity over barbarism that must not be lost.

You might even go so far as to raise the price of gas a quarter or two to pay for it.

38

Drongo Said:
5:06 am

“War is not a penny pinching enterprise, as we are now discovering, you go in with everything and get it over. If that is asking too much then donâ€™t go to war.”

There’s an idea that doesn’t get enough consideration. “Don’t go to war”.

A radical consideration to be sure, but maybe next time the flags are waving and the blood is up we might remember it.

The fact is that wars rarely work out as you wanted them to. Avoiding them is the best strategy, only engaging in defensive wars is forced to.

39

Drongo Said:
5:40 am

“Oh well! This could go on and on, but the idea is to Dominate, and only then show the velvet glove.”

Every one of these tactics was used by the Soviets in Afghanistan. They exhibited bloodshed, terror, arbitary detention and overwhelming force for years there.

And what happened?

It went on and on and on until eventually they gave up a bad hand.

You honestly want to fight like the Soviets? What the hell has happened to your country?

Look, some realities here;

1) Unless you wanted to occupy the country for ever the locals will keep fighting you or backstabbing you or fighting amongst themselves in recognition that there will be a time when you are gone.

2) You want to go home, they already are at home. It costs you money and political capital to fight the war. It costs them nothing.

3) The harder you hit them the more they come back at you.

4) As the occupier and overwhelming military powerhouse you are the weaker party in the war because you are already behind on points on the moral level.

5) You are Americans. You are not and never were going to support another long bloody, poorly conceived insurgency war. It is no good pretending that you are a different people with cold hard imperial will. As an example;

“Today, this means a Supersurge within some months from now, or perhaps a year. It also means a draft, and a number of years of deployments.”

You might as well say that you will be deploying your mental control machines to turn the Iraqis into peaceloving satraps for all the good it does. Or that you’ll deploy a troop of super heroes from America’s finest.

No-one will get a draft introduced for this war because you live in a democracy and people don’t want to be drafted to fight what they largely consider a pointless war.

Try to see it from the other side for a moment, please. Your country has been invaded by a foreign force. That force is clearly running things with a puppet government in place. You have suspicion that they are there to steal your country permanently. They shot up your son at a checkpoint because he was driving too fast. They virtually flattened Detroit. New York is now a gangland of violence between the various communities.

What are you, as a patriot, going to do? Welcome the occupiers with open arms? Or would you fight to your last breath?

Don’t you get this? You literally cannot win. You don’t have the forces for the full colonial occupation that you speak of and you’re never going to get them. You are never going to get the Sunni tribes to co-operate with you (the talk of them killing Al-Q is just waht we’ve been saying all along. The moment the occupation leaves the Sunnis will be clearing house of those hated Wahhabists). The Shiites are always going to prefer Iran to you. The government will fall, as do all Quisling governments.

Your choices are to get out now or wait for some more death and then get out later. Later could be 2 years, it could be 50 years, the results will be the same.

“You want to fold, then fold, and take what comes after. I, for one, will feel far less secure about Islamofascists in America if we do fold.”

What, that vast army of Islamofacists that will soon be taking over the country?

How is staying in Iraq helping you in that respect? Surely not the flypaper theory? The Islamofacists are in Pakistan living comfortably in their own little -stan waiting for the day when they might be able to grab the reins of a nuclear power. The ones in Iraq are idiot footsoldiers with a death wish. While Bin Laden and his buddies are sitting pretty, you are wasting all your moral and military might on an irrelevant distraction.

More brain and a lot less brawn is what’s needed here.

40

tomt Said:
6:11 am

You do not fight on the cheap, but you fight with the resources you have. If you plan on a long occupation, you maust make plans to rotate troops to keep them fresh. I do not believe you can fight suicide bombers with massive amounts of force. I think you will end up with allot more dead on your hands.

My primary premise is that people do not acknowledge that the solutions they offer may come with their own set of problems that could lead to outcomes far worse than we have currently. Personally, I do not think any of the popular solutions I have heard would have changed much on the ground today. I do not think what we have today in Iraq is that horrible. The Government is already much better than most of the Governments in that area. I think abandoning Iraq today would be a big mistake especially with the payoff being so large. People need to get some perspective.

41

tomt Said:
6:23 am

Rumsfeld was a true reformer. He cut crusader and comanche programs. This was uprecedented. Lets face it, Rumsfeld wanted to make the mitary more efficient. You may say cheap, but I think he thought we had enough resources to do the job and they just had to be utilized more effectively. I can’t argue with that. I think we need a military that is more nimble and able to respond quickly.

42

grognard Said:
7:47 am

TomT
â€¦canâ€™t fight suicide bombers withâ€¦massive force.
Then what do you use? Toothpicks? If you have another method of dealing with insurgents other than boots on the ground please illuminate us with your obviously vast knowledge of military operations.

Richard
Totally agree, and I will add â€œAmerica is not at war,. The Marine corps is at war. America is at the mall â€œ [a sign posted in Iraq]. If paying more in taxes is too much to ask when our service people are going to risk their lives then donâ€™t go to war.

43

Richard Bottoms Said:
8:18 am

You may say cheap, but I think he thought we had enough resources to do the job…

Unfortunately he was wrong.

44

Richard Bottoms Said:
8:20 am

War is not a penny pinching enterprise, as we are now discovering, you go in with everything and get it over. If that is asking too much then donâ€™t go to war.

If only someone had said something like that before the invasion.

Oh wait. I did.

So did hundreds of other vets who knew this war would be a disaster, not because it had zero chance on its face.

It had zero chance because George Bush was leading it.

45

grognard Said:
10:48 am

Richard. Yeah, I said the same thing, there was nothing more disgusting than to see people thump their chests over how patriotic they were then turn around and demand tax cuts. The Republican congress would have been a lot more interested in the wars progress if we were paying for it. Not to mention showing the troops that we were willing to make a least a token sacrifice to the war effort they would be putting their lives on the line for.

46

mannning Said:
1:45 pm

Drongo; For your info, our census shows that there are over 6 million Muslims in the US. Care to guess how many of those can be radicalized instantly by the right approach? The 10,000 mosques here are hotbeds of shouting that the US should go Sharia, Muslims should have separate facilities, etc. etc, and our FBI states that more than 10% of them are fully indoctrinated into Islamofascism right now. We have a massive internal Muslim problem today, and it is only growing worse. All the same signs as the UK has been having are here, but somewhat more muted for the moment. Nothing good can come of this—nothing.

Our lovely MSM tries mightily to keep the lid on the events that can be linked to Islamic vengence and terror so as not to alarm the masses. But the number of killings in the US that are indeed linked to Muslims is growing in every state.

I am all for using brains when solving problems. Somehow the wrong brains use the wrong philosophy when speaking of Islam and the West. They refuse to accept the fact that we are at war with Islam, not terror, per se. They refuse to believe that Muslims are serious about conquering the world by hook or crook, and they take a long view of how to do this. Thus, some people simply refuse to believe that the Iraqi situation is critically important to the battle against Islam, when it is actually the chief engagement.

Here we have a religious sect that believes in their ultimate victory against the infidel, they believe the infidels are beneath human and can be dealt with as they please when they have the power to do so, as we have seen often on TV. The 1.5 billion Muslims in the world can become a potent force for a new Islamic Caliphate.

Are we not using our heads today to see this threat in all of its manifestations? Are we not concerned as we watch Europe being Muslimed to death, one bite at a time?

I think most people are assuming the posture of an ostrich regarding the threat, and definitely not using their brains. Demographics in Europe are frighteningly in favor of a Muslin dominance by mid-century, and no one over there is doing a thing to stop it; they are all hung up on the liberty and freedom of deadly enemies to subvert the government and reorganize the state to their liking.

Some brainpower in Europe! Perhaps they should spend less time on their vaunted cultural pursuits and more time looking around them as the place crumbles.

Hey Rick….Takes alot of guts to change one’s opionion. Your not “cowardly”. As you say the “threads of logic” ain’t there. When one thinks they have been “mislead” and begins to relaize the noble cause they supported was and still is run by a bunch of fools….do you jump over the cliff with all the rest of the true believers? Don’t be ridiculous…your a libertine. Hang in there…